OK Supreme Court: Ten Commandments Monument Must Be Removed From Capitol

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: uncommitted
One person so far gets it. Yes , the 10 Commandments as well as the Laws of Moses are followed by all 3. Which are the 3 religions predominant in the history of the US.

They may be predominant, but they aren't the only ones.

If you are Rastafarian, does that mean your religious freedoms shouldn't be protected? If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster should your religious freedoms not matter?

Christianity isn't a minority, but for it's freedom to exist, the freedom for ALL other religions have to exist. Your religion can't be the only "sanctioned" one to receive protection.

And since we have over 300 religions, sects and denominations in America -- religion should have no place in anything paid for or administered by the government. The government belongs to us all, all faiths and denominations. It violates the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause to favor one religion.

If you want freedom to practice your religion, you have to accept that that also applies to all other religions. And if that's the case -- the government has to be impartial and non-religious in order to administer itself fairly to all.

a reply to: Gothmog

Because even if it honors three religions instead of one, it still isn't paying homage to the 300 and some other religions recognized by the US Government. The Constitution is clear on this. You either honor all or none, nothing in between.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I want a Cthulhu monument with some funky non-Euclidean geometry.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
And where is this evident in the Constitution ? Please tell.

a reply to: Gothmog

The Establishment Clause.

a reply to: Gothmog

I addressed this on page 2:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Gothmog

The Establishment Clause.

The Establishment Clause.

Notice the name. "Establishment". If I remember correctly all 3 religions I noted were established long before the Constitution.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Dont want to take the time to go through an entire thread.

originally posted by: Gothmog
If I remember correctly all 3 religions I noted were established long before the Constitution.

Irrelevant.

a reply to: Gothmog

Well it's a good thing I posted a link to the post in question then.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Gothmog

The Establishment Clause.

The Establishment Clause.

Notice the name. "Establishment". If I remember correctly all 3 religions I noted were established long before the Constitution.

This reads like you are unaware of what the Establishment Clause actually is.

Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Thanks for that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..
Did Congress make a law about anything with the 10 Commandments as had to be located in or outside a courtroom. ? Dont believe so.If you do please enlighten me. Also , if they did make a law banning those same 10 Commandments from outside a courtroom ,would it not violate the second part of that ?
Sorry , again game over and you are all out of tokens....

a reply to: Indigo5

Quoting from Snopes

The lower portions of the two doors are engraved with a symbolic depiction, two tablets bearing the Roman numerals I through V and VI through X. As discussed in the next item, these symbols can represent something other than the Ten Commandments.

These symbols are obviously the 10 commandments, to say they are not is being intellectually dishonest

Moses is not given any special emphasis in this depiction: his figure is not larger than the others, nor does it appear in a dominant position. Also, the writing on the tablet carried by Moses in this frieze includes portions of commandments 6 through 10 (in Hebrew), specifically chosen because they are not inherently religious.

I disagree, they are the foundation of the law given by Moses to the Jews, and adopted by Christians, all 10 are inherently and derivatively from religion and religious sources. The Torah and the Old Testament.

King Solomon from the Old Testament is also present, a religious figure, whose only writings appear in the Old Testament or Torah, just like the writings of Moses.

Lady Justice, is a Roman and Greek goddess who was worshiped in ancient religions, a religious figure.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Thanks for that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..
Did Congress make a law about anything with the 10 Commandments as had to be located in or outside a courtroom. ? Dont believe so.If you do please enlighten me. Also , if they did make a law banning those same 10 Commandments from outside a courtroom ,would it not violate the second part of that ?
Sorry , again game over and you are all out of tokens....

Why would Congress have to make a specific law addressing what court houses can and can't display? The establishment clause is pretty clear about these things. Since a court house is a government building, it can't honor a religion over any others. Banning religious iconography from a government building isn't preventing anyone from practicing their religion. You are perfectly free to practice any Abrahamic religion in your own home, church, mosque, or temple.

Game over? Your reasoning is ridiculous.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: grandmakdw

Why can't kids learn about religion in their churches, homes, and from those people that go door-to-door? Why does it have to be included into the school system?

I've already said in this thread that there at LEAST 313 different faiths and denominations in America. Is one more valid than another? Is one person's faith less valid or valuable than someone elses? How do we determine who's theism is to be presented over another's without bias?

The Christians have no problem stripping marriage altogether from the government now that gays can get married, what's the difference in stripping religion altogether from the schools if Christianity can't be taught?

It isn't included in the school system. Schools are scared to death of a lawsuits from atheists and have removed every drop of religion from the public schools. Your question is a moot point. It was someone else (Krazyshot) who claimed we should fight for it to be included, not me. Our schools don't need another atheist lawsuit.

No religion is more valid than the other under the constitution, if we ban religious symbols of one religion from the public arena, we must therefore, to be fair and just, ban any and all religious symbols from all religions from the public arena. Be the symbols ancient, or historical, or modern origin. If one religious symbol is banned within courts, all symbols regardless of age or intent, or the religion represented should be banned to be fair, just, and to give equal treatment to all religions.

The "Christians",
which when you say "the Christians"
includes all Christians,
Mother Theresa,
my Dr friend who is the only Dr. for miles and miles around who will treat AIDS patients and he does it free,
the people who run missions for the homeless and give people food to eat and a place to sleep,
my sewing group who make quilts and mats for the homeless, and bags for foster children to carry their things in rather than the trash bags supplied by the state in place
of a suitcase.

Anyway "the Christians" (the way 'the christians" is phrased, by following it with a negative connotation, is quite judgmental and demonstrates bigotry toward ALL Christians)

"The Christians" are not trying to do away with marriage,
they want marriage to be taken entirely out of the hands of the government,
and rather than have a license to marry,
people will go to a lawyer or notary and sign a marriage contract.

There will still be marriage,
but the government will have zero say in who does or doesn't marry.
Any adult can contract with any other adult
(unless it involves incest or multiple partners)
and have a marriage contract. There is still going to be marriage,
it just won't be defined by the government,
but be defined by the two people entering into a marriage contract.
There will still be marriage and legal marriage, it will just be by contract rather than by license.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
The Christians are not trying to do away with marriage, they want marriage to be taken entirely out of the hands of the government, and rather than have a license to marry, people will go to a lawyer or notary and sign a marriage contract. There will still be marriage, but the government will have zero say in who does or doesn't marry. Any adult can contract with any other adult (unless it involves incest or multiple partners) and have a marriage contract. There is still going to be marriage, it just won't be defined by the government, but be defined by the people entering into a marriage contract. There will still be marriage and legal marriage, it will just be by contract rather than by license.

I'd believe this was more altruistic if it weren't for the fact that Christians started pursuing this path of attack AFTER they lost the gay marriage debate instead of from the very beginning like they should have. Now it just looks like a pathetic attempt to continue to keep gays from marrying while appealing to the "smaller government" creed. Especially since gay marriage bans are LARGER government, not smaller government.

You do know that racist Christians trying to prevent interracial marriage is the reason why the government is involved with marriage in the first place? The government just grew past the racist reasons for it and kept control for other reasons.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: grandmakdw
The Christians are not trying to do away with marriage, they want marriage to be taken entirely out of the hands of the government, and rather than have a license to marry, people will go to a lawyer or notary and sign a marriage contract. There will still be marriage, but the government will have zero say in who does or doesn't marry. Any adult can contract with any other adult (unless it involves incest or multiple partners) and have a marriage contract. There is still going to be marriage, it just won't be defined by the government, but be defined by the people entering into a marriage contract. There will still be marriage and legal marriage, it will just be by contract rather than by license.

I'd believe this was more altruistic if it weren't for the fact that Christians started pursuing this path of attack AFTER they lost the gay marriage debate instead of from the very beginning like they should have. Now it just looks like a pathetic attempt to continue to keep gays from marrying while appealing to the "smaller government" creed. Especially since gay marriage bans are LARGER government, not smaller government.

You do know that racist Christians trying to prevent interracial marriage is the reason why the government is involved with marriage in the first place? The government just grew past the racist reasons for it and kept control for other reasons.

I do know why the government first got involved,
and it is an excellent reason to support
the government to become involved.

There are no more legitimate reasons for the government to control marriage.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
There are no more legitimate reasons for the government to control marriage.

Because it is intertwined with the tax code and carries additional legal familial benefits.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: grandmakdw
There are no more legitimate reasons for the government to control marriage.

Because it is intertwined with the tax code and carries additional legal familial benefits.

The tax code would be unaffected, as far as tax code goes, a license will be exactly the same as a marriage contract.

The marriage contract will cover all additional legal familial benefits, as it will act exactly like a license, except not be subject to having to get permission from the government to marry - that is what a license is, getting permission to engage in an activity.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I think we are way past the point of trying to change the definitions and parameters. Additionally, you get all those rights and benefits now when you sign your marriage license, the ceremony is superfluous.